There is hardly a political question in the U.S., Alexis de Tocqueville said, that does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. The Supreme Court‘s new term — which began last week — may show just how right de Tocqueville was. The court could issue landmark rulings on affirmative action, same-sex marriage — and, less politically, in an array of other cases, including one involving the Constitution and drug-sniffing dogs.

The Supreme Court has a solid 5-4 conservative majority these days. The conservative Justices could deliver big setbacks to affirmative action and gay rights. But as the court demonstrated in June, when it unexpectedly upheld the new federal health care law, these things are not easy to predict.

This term’s biggest case is likely to be a challenge by a white student to affirmative action in university admissions. The court will hear arguments in the case, Fisher v. University of Texas, on Wednesday. In a pair of 5-4 decisions — in 1978 and 2003 — the court upheld affirmative action against charges of reverse discrimination. But the court’s 2003 ruling was only possible because Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate conservative, voted with the liberal bloc. Since then, Justice O’Connor has been replaced by Samuel Alito, who is not a fan of race-based admissions policies.

The new lineup means there is a very good chance the court will strike down the University of Texas’ use of race in admissions. As a formal matter, the ruling would likely be limited to public universities, but it could clear the way for lawsuits challenging race-based admissions in private schools and race-based hiring. Still, a major unwinding of affirmative action is hardly a sure thing: the court could look at what a major change this would be for the nation and pull back.

On same-sex marriage, the court could agree to hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples argue that the law denies them equal protection, since it excludes them from rights other married couples enjoy, such as filing joint tax returns or — if one spouse is not a citizen — obtaining a green card.

In May, a federal appeals court in Boston declared DOMA unconstitutional, and opponents of same-sex marriage have asked the court to hear an appeal. Although the court has not yet decided to take the case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month told a group of students she thought the court would consider same-sex marriage this term.

A second way same-sex marriage may reach the court is an appeal of a ruling striking down California’s Prop 8, which denied same-sex couples the right to marry. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in February that the ballot initiative unconstitutionally took away rights from a single class of disfavored citizens — gay people.

Many conservatives want the Supreme Court to hold back the gains same-sex marriage has been making, but despite the court’s 5-4 conservative tilt, it is not clear it will do so. Anthony Kennedy, who is generally the swing Justice, has supported gay rights in important cases in the past. If he again votes with the pro-gay-rights side, the court could deliver landmark rulings in support of gay marriage.

There are other significant cases on the docket, including a pair involving a staple of on-the-ground law enforcement: the drug-sniffing dog. The court has struggled for years to define when a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment — including when a dog does the searching. This term’s cases pose the question of when police need a search warrant to have a dog sniff the outside of a home and the inside of a truck.

Court watchers will be focused on one more thing: Chief Justice John Roberts. He was a reliable conservative vote, but last June he unexpectedly provided the fifth vote to uphold the health care law. The far right has demonized the Chief Justice as a traitor. The question now is, Will he continue his independent ways or was his defection a one-time aberration? NPR Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg, for one, says, “Don’t hold your breath waiting for John Roberts to vote with liberals in a closely contested case again.” So by next June, affirmative action may be headed on a path toward oblivion and the same-sex marriage movement may have a powerful endorsement from the Supreme Court.

And the other famous sex research team Masters and Johnson--here's the real results of their life's work: Their son, Bill Masters, TV producer married to Gail Berman, TV Producer. Turns out their married son is a flasher:

"Last year the executive board of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) joined the controversy over gay marriage by issuing a statement that declared:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.

"Ideologically, I suppose this is what one has come to expect from the AAA: a reflexive affirmation of leftist pieties. But still, it is surprising to see a professional organization propound such a breathless lie. As an AAA member for some 25 years, I am embarrassed.

In fact, some 150 years of systematic inquiry by anthropologists leaves little doubt that heterosexual marriage is found in nearly every human society and almost always as a pivotal institution. Homosexual marriage outside contemporary Western societies is exceedingly rare and never the basis of "viable social order."

Um, that "AAA" on your card stands for the American Automobile Association, surely.

Since you posted thebackground and rationale ("The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time") as well as the conclusion ("provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution"), you really have nothing to be "embarrassed" about.

Nor did you bother explaining how or why their findings are " a breathless lie".

"Last year the executive board of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) joined the controversy over gay marriage by issuing a statement that declared

'The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.'

"Ideologically, I suppose this is what one has come to expect from the AAA: a reflexive affirmation of leftist pieties. But still, it is surprising to see a professional organization propound such a breathless lie. As an AAA member for some 25 years, I am embarrassed.

"In fact, some 150 years of systematic inquiry by anthropologists leaves little doubt that heterosexual marriage is found in nearly every human society and almost always as a pivotal institution. Homosexual marriage outside contemporary Western societies is exceedingly rare and never the basis of "viable social order."

I'm sorry true grit, but heterosexual marriage is not the "pivotal" factor for societies sustaining themsevles; food, population, diasease etc... are factors, not a man and women fornicating with the consent of government/religion.

Marriage, as we are using in "contemporary Western societies" is so different and has changed vastly since recorded history has mentioned hetero weddings (i.e. women aren't considered property, no one uses dowries, etc...) there's virtually no comparison. The divorce rate is 50%....thats one in two heterosexual marriages completely falling apart...how is this a "pivotal insitution"?

You're just cherry picking quotes to suit your religously biased views of what a marriage is. It's so obvious. :(

LGBTQQI Rights is Human Rights. If anyone had anything to say about The Declaration, it should have been mentioned long back then. The governments that are members of the United Nations are responsible each to the human rights agreed upon.

Article 1.All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

EMC567, I don't think you know what a "fallacy" is. You claim I presented a straw man fallacy, but I know what that means and I did not. If you think I did, why can't you articulate what I said that fits the definition of a straw man fallacy?

Second, your claim that gay couples are already treated equally by the law is ludicrous. If you need me to waste space here enumerating the dozens if not hundreds of variances, let me know.

Look, it is my assertion that as far as legal marriage isconcerned, since it's not illegal to be gay, there is no legal basis on which to deny otherwise-qualified same-gender couples access to a marriage license. That is a clear, concise statement. If you refute it, please do so not with empty rants but by telling what legal basis you believe exists on which to deny same-gender couples.

Marriage is kept exclusively between a man and a woman because it evolved that way over thousands and thousands of years, and was proven to work. Same-sex "marriage" is a recent invention by courts who think they can undo thousands of years with the stroke of a pen, in the name of some kinda of left-wing social engineering, similar to Marxism.

This is almost as bad as abolishing property rights, which was also tried, also undid thousands of years of human development, and it also failed. The left-wing tried it in Russia, claiming to set people free by doing so, just as they claim to be on the side of human freedom when they redefine marriage, which is a decision they make by themselves, unelected, with no popular input, no democracy, no representation, nothing at all.

It has NOT been "a man and a woman" exclusively for "over thousands and thousands of years". Simply google either 'two-spirited people", or same-gender marraige amongst aboriginal peoples, or "Saints Sergius and Bacchus" for several same-gender examples.

And then there's the 'a man and several women' model that is so prevalent not only in the Bible, but also in non-Christian nations.

When you use the word "abolish", one gets the impression you think heterosexual marriage is being discontinued or forbidden. Which is, of course, nonsense.

And, it isn't "kept that way" since it's been more than 8 years since same-gender marriage became legal in the United States. DO catch up. The 21st Century awaits you.

"Homosexual marriage" is not nearly so widely accepted as the lying liberal news media would have you believe through their FAKE polls. So far the citizens of 32 states have voted to ban "homosexual marriage" in their state constitutions, including ultra-liberal California, though that one is still in legal limbo. Minnesota are likely to be the 33rd state to ban it this fall. 10 more states have laws against it, meaning they are favoring inclined to an amendment, but no amendment yet. Do the math. Excluding California, that's 40+ states that would probably vote for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution should the Supreme Court choose to legislate from the bench. Bear in mind that the Founding Fathers gave us two methods of writing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that second method does not involve in any way the worthless, dysfunctional, reprobate U.S. Congress or the U.S. President.

since when are people "rights' suppose to be voted on? Rights are guaranteed by the government from our founding principles and documents. Putting someones rights to a "vote" is blatantly "unamerican". They should be acknowledged based upon the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. All are guaranteed to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", by these documents. Not someone else's religious beliefs. For our government to withhold the rights of anyone based on a religious principle is in and of itself against what this nation was founded on.

Mary, do you mean to imply that if polls which were incontrovertible supported marriage equality you would then shut your yap about it?

PS, "The will of the people" arguments are getting old. Let's look at another social fight over the rules of marriage.

In 1948 when the CA Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage statewide, 90% of American voters opposed it. In 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage on a nationwide level, 72% still opposed it. It wasn't until 1994 that these people were in the minority for the first time with 41% opposing and 45% approving. As of 2007, 17% still disapprove of marriage equality for interracial couples.

Thank God we have a constitution and a judicial branch of government to set us right when we make mistakes.

That "you're angry" business is like a bad sales technique. Don't turn it back on Mary. Ask that question to anyone in prior decades and they would think you were crazy. In the past homosexuality was seen as perversion. Not the wonderful illusion it is presented as today. At one time only gay "total strangers" had sex. It was called a "one night stand" Remember that gay life?

Mantis: "People like you" and then your massive generalizations. Looks like you've got everyone moving to Iran. I'm not wasting my time explaining things to you. I lived through the civil rights movement. It was based on truth, not spoiled entitled gays. Go back.

The American Anthropological Association tells us that more than a century of anthropological research has shown "no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies."

Talk about hot air. Apply that to living and functioning in a heterosexual world. Many make the comparison to interracial marriage, but that was between a man and a woman. Try to explaining the anthropological theories to a crowd of teenage boys who want to bash you because they saw you kiss your "husband" It's your battle to lose as a first generation gay couple. And I didn't use you favorite word "bigot" I know how bad gays have had it in the 21st century.

Interesting thought. Why is it that people in support of gay marriage don't try to end state sanctioned marriage completely? Why don't people in support of restricting legal gay marriage want to end state sanctioned marriage completely? It seems like allowing the government domain over this issue creates way more problems than it is worth.

If you don't get rid of it and you continue on to allow gay marriage, you raise even more questions of fairness. What about polygamists why don't they get benefits? Why not those who wish to remain single? What about animal or robot loving, shouldn't they get benefits too?

Like it or not, the government governs. That is, they pass and administer laws that happen to pertain to "the effects that flow from marriage". If the government got out of that "domain", which body would 'govern'? Surely not "The Church"? (Not that "The Church" is even of one accord on the matter.)

As for polygamy, those "effects that flow from marriage" come into play. Let me explain.

The only 'purpose' of marriage (in the eyes of the law) is to establish legal kinship (specifically, next-of-kin-ship) where none previously existed. And, upon that kinship rest those effects - who gets the pension, the inheritance, the social security, etc.? The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th wife are NOT the legal "NEXT-of-kin". Nor are they married to ech other, but only to the husband. And what about alimony, child-custody, child-support? Currently in America, no one has the right to multiple spouses. But the Supreme Court has declared - on 14 separate occasions - that marriage is a "basic human right". And no one is arguing to change the number of spouses in a marriae. That's just a useless red herring.

Animals, like children, cannot render legal consent to enter into a contract (which is what marriage is in the eyes of the law). So the beastiality scare-mongering is nothing but yet another empty, false, useless red herring.

Nope, that's half-baked thinking. Gay people are neither more nor less likely to favor ending state recognition of marriages, only are concerned with equal treatment with regard to whatever the state does.

Currently, same-sex marriages function in society the same as opposite sex marriages: stable family households, shared financial security, providing for each other's mutual care including healthcare (so the state doesn't have to), sometimes raising children, etc. Most would say the state has a legitimate interest in recognizing marriages, and since it is not illegal to be gay and gay couples function the same, there is no legally sustainable reason to arbitrarily deny gay couples.

Your nonsense about marrying toasters, infants, or ten women is intellectual garbage. If you seriously are unable to see why those are different, go get a better education and figure it out.

You'll see!!! Some day plenty of people will want to marry robots and robots will want to marry!

Don't be a jerk, I was just raising a contrarian point that doesn't get any discussion. Couldn't what marriage provides be provided through a well structured contract? None of your points say it couldn't. It seems like that would make every party happy who has an interest?

The only reason that could stand up against gay marriage and for straight marriage would be that state sanctioned marriage exists to increase child production. Which you would have to agree (until very recently) is valid logically if that's the goal you want to accomplish. It probably wasn't the purpose of marriage originally though so it's revisionist. It seems like the purpose of marriage more likely is that it's a successful socially stable system. It gives men of lesser means a better chance of breeding than a polygamous society thus insuring they are content and peaceful.

It should be legal though if we're going to state sanction marriage. It doesn't do anyone or anything any harm. A politician would have to balance whose sensibilities are more important, gay people vs religious people, because you can't have a win win in this situation. Obviously you are a gay person who cares more about your own sensibilities than the sensibilities of your religious compatriots. Most people care about their own sensibilities more.

Naveed, you can't bring robots into a discussion about human relationships without being seen as a "jerk" yourself.

Your contrarianism LACKS a valid "point", which is WHY it "doesn't get any discussion".

Marriage IS a contract already. Nor have you given any reason why same-gender couples should have to go through the legal bother of entering into a "well structured contract" when opposite-gender couples don't have to.

What part of "equal treatment before the law" don;t you understand?

The notion that "state sanctioned marriage exists to increase child production" is ludicrous since we allow eldery, infertile and willingly non-procreative heterosexuals to marry. Makin' babies is NOT a requirement of marriage - for anyone! And it's NOT "revisionist" either, since it never HAS been a requirement of marriage.

You make a false distinction between "gay people vs religious people". Many gay people ARE religious people. (About 60-70%, per the religioustolerance.org website.) MY religion is perfectly fine with same-gender marriage. So are the Quakers and an ever-growing list of faiths.

The 'win-win' is only possible if other people mind their own business, since other people's marriages (i.e. another couple's relationships - with themselves AND with the government) is none of their (read YOUR) concern in the first place.

Nav, False: we CAN have a win-win. When gay couples buy a marriage license that in no way threatens anyone's religion. You have fallen hook, line and sinker for the false claim that it does. The win-win comes when conservative religious zealots learn once and for all the concept of separation of church and state.

Dale, with all due respect, you sound very angry which it seems to fog the thought of thinking and creating all kinds of fallacies during your argument. This is why is hard to have a conversation with some gay activists because cannot reason during a mature conversation.

@Dale amp; JeffreyRO55: This would be my last post. I really cannot be discussing with a straw man which is the first fallacy: trying to distort the issue in your advantage by attacking ones view. Second fallacy, begging the question, you have already implied that gays are not treated as equal. Actually, same sex-couples are already treated as with the same rights as heterosexual marriages, same sex-couples can file taxes; open a bank account, insurance, etc. What gay activists now want is the title of marriage. Third fallacy, you have a common belief regarding the role of same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples without historical context. And final fallacy, you are appealing to emotion: instead of arguing emotionally an individual should argue with logical assertions and your arguments are very emotional.

Dale: Your argument sounds a bit frantic. You remind me of the guy in the street with a megaphone. Keep barking and maybe someone will notice. As it is The Supreme Court has not voted on the issue, and if Romney is elected gay marriage won't happen. That could delay it.